New Delhi: A Delhi court recently convicted a man of kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a minor, underscoring the brutality of the crime. The court observed that “these kinds of brutal injuries are life-threatening for such a small child,” noting the victim’s suffering.The case dates back to Nov 2025, when the accused, Sunny Kumar, a neighbour of the victim, allegedly took the child on the pretext of buying her chocolate. According to the mother, when the child did not return home till late evening, she began searching for her. Around 9 pm, the accused brought the child back with blood on her clothes. Upon being questioned, the victim disclosed the assault, following which she was taken to a nearby hospital and an FIR was registered in Mahendra Park police station.In Dec last year, the court took note of the severe injuries suffered by the child, which left her dependent on tubes to pass urine and stool, and directed the North Delhi Legal Services Authority to grant interim compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the family to “alleviate their sorrows”.On April 30, Justice Amit Sahrawat held Kumar liable for offences of kidnapping, rape causing grievous injuries to a girl under 12 years of age, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(l), and 65(2) of the BNS, along with Section 6 of the Pocso Act.The defence, through amicus curiae, argued that the injuries were caused by a fall and not by the alleged assault. The court, however, rejected this claim, noting the improbability “that the victim falls on any outer object with so much accuracy that no other body part gets injured and only the private parts get torn apart, and that also from inside.”Further relying on the medical report and submissions by prosecutor Aditya Kumar, the court concluded, “The injuries sustained by the victim and doctor’s testimonies regarding her injuries are sufficient enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt” that the harm was caused by a penetrative act.Justice Sahrawat also dismissed the argument that the accused’s act of bringing the child home negated his involvement, citing CCTV footage showing him with the child on the day of the incident.
